A bitch who prefers a cackling tone...
...singling out Clinton's voice as horrible necessarily invokes the woman-specific sexist context, even if that is not your intent.
So says the common-sense-challenged Melissa McEwan, regarding a political souvenir pen that plays the famous Hillary Clinton laugh. Adds McEwan,
So if you're inexorably compelled to criticize Hillary's voice, just know that you've got to own the sexist context, too.
To which Ann Althouse replies,
Look, we make fun of male candidates. We joke around about how they look and sound and it's often unfair and unrelated to their qualifications for office. It's part of the vivid debate we have in America. We don't have to pull back and tone it down because a woman (or a black person) is running. The candidates are seeking vast power. We should be irreverent and unafraid.

McEwan apparently means to be a good feminist by saying things they teach you to say in Women's Studies class, hushing and chiding us, and grasping after moral high ground with vague references to "history," but this notion that a powerful woman needs special protection from the full force of political debate -- with all its vicious mockery -- is not good for women. It may be stupid or unfair to judge a candidate by her laugh, but to cry sexism is lame.

Not only is it lame, it sets up a horrendously unfair double standard. What if the perpetrators of the ridicule are themselves women? Are they sexists too? And suppose a man's voice is being mocked? Why isn't that just as sexist?

As regulars may remember, I downloaded the Hillary Clinton cackle, set it as the ring tone in my cell phone, and played it for Coco. I don't know how impressed she was, but she is female, and she prefers female humans to male humans.

Once again, here's Coco reacting to the Hillary cackle:

Melissa McEwan, are you calling my bitch a sexist?

On what basis?

Or am I the one who's accused of sexism for downloading the ring tone and playing it for Coco? Why? As it happens, I did exactly the same thing with Mitt Romney's laugh. So what? I didn't support Romney and I can't stand Hillary. And I laughed at both their laughs. Will someone explain why I am sexist only for ridiculing Hillary's laugh, but not Romney's? By this logic I guess I'd be racist if I made Coco listen to a Barack Obama ring tone.

Sheesh.

While this is almost enough to make me lose my sense of humor, at least I can say that the ostensibly feminist champions of a humor-free society haven't gotten to Coco. Here's a picture I took this picture of her just an hour ago:

cocospringsmile.jpg

(Clearly having the last laugh....)

MORE: Regarding the race issue, Glenn Reynolds links Ann Althouse's post, adding that "mocking Obama is always racist, no matter how mockable he may be." (So says the Obama campaign.)

And Rick Moran's post about Obama's friendship with Ayers ("in the Age of Terror... our President being on a first name basis with an unrepentant terrorist is probably a bad example to set") reminded me that every Republican should hope this unelectable man is the nominee, and the rational strategy is to vote for him to the extent possible. My worry, as I've said many times, is that Hillary can still beat him, and that in the course of the battle with Obama she'll come out smelling more like a centrist than ever before.

(Which would really give her something to cackle over....)

If there is a Republican argument for Hillary based on strategy, I'm all ears.

posted by Eric on 04.25.08 at 03:11 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/6562






Comments

Fox news did a montage of Obama's "heh," so they're obviously racist, except I don't know where "heh" fits in on the AA stereotype. And of course no one on the left criticising Bush's accent could possibly be a bigot because one's accent is uh, wait, let me think...okay forget the accent idea. Making fun of Catholics is cool (as McEwan did) because religious prejudice isn't really...darn, I'm having trouble keeping this straight.

Easiest answer: McEwan is comfortable taking the worst possible interpretations of other people's words, but insists on the best possible for her own words. That seems rather a personal problem.

Assistant Village Idiot   ·  April 25, 2008 04:05 PM

You girls/women don't get it because you've not had to fight as much prejudice as many women or blacks have. It has to do with how many people are against and how many are for--and the degree & number against. If there are 100 in a group and only one is a woman and they make fun of all the ways she is different from the ideal, it is going to be unfair. That is sorta what is happening with Hillary and the predominately all male media. It's ganging up on somebody for something that has nothing do do with the office for the explicit purpose of hurting their feelings or shaming them so they will go away and not run-- or to make others think less of them as a human being. That is what is being done to Hillary. The "bitch" question that was posed to "McCain" said as much or more about him, but it didn't register that way because men mostly agree women who run for office should be put down and a Rep. woman knew it would grant her acceptance by McCain. If these things have to be explained, then gosh, we are a whole lot more trouble than I thought. Women competing for men and not supporting their like and kind sister. Oh you women are so short sighted. No wonder we haven't gotten a female president in 232 years. With this attitude, prejudices against women and veritable slavery for women in many countries will go on while you all try to one-up each other to gain the attention of a male(s).

Bev Alfeld   ·  April 27, 2008 01:07 AM


May 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits